Is compensation due for missing vehicle equipment due to theft?

The case study

Our client was insured with the defendant insurer under "Casco" insurance for a new car. However, one morning he discovered something missing from his car and after numerous arguments with his insurer, he came to our office.

In 2018, the insured discovered that the car parked in front of his house had a broken front left door. The car was missing bi-xenon facelift headlights, a sports steering wheel with paddle shifters, part of the dashboard and center console, including a navigation system, CD/DVD, climate control, and other devices, and the trunk was missing a spare tire, tools, a first aid kit, a warning triangle, and the trunk glass was also broken.

The insured person notifies the police of these absences, and in the course of the investigation It has not been established who crashed the car and took the equipment. In the meantime, the insured has filed an application for compensation with the insurer.

The insurer issues an assignment letter for the repair of the damaged and available parts, but refuses to pay compensation for the missing equipment, on the grounds that the insurance does not cover cover missing due to theft or robbery.

Thus, this case reached the Sofia District Court.

The decision of the Sofia District Court (SRC)

After collecting evidence and expert opinions, the Sofia District Court considered the claim for payment of insurance compensation for deficiencies (missing parts) to be solid.

In its reasoning, the Sofia District Court presented its principled position that cars are a complex composite item that includes separate elements. The court also shares our thesis that, in addition, its individual parts do not have their own independent purpose, but are functionally related to the car. In view of this, all parts of the car in their entirety and interaction provide the opportunity for the car to be used in accordance with its intended purpose.

Due to the above, the court held that by undertaking to bear the risk from theft of the entire vehicle, the insurer also bears the risk of theft of those parts of it without which the vehicle cannot be used for its intended purpose.

Thus, it was accepted that the exceptions specified in the general terms and conditions of the insurer, which exclude from coverage the theft of equipment, individual parts and assemblies of the vehicle, apply only to those parts of the vehicle, which can be removed without any special effort or use of technical means and without which it is possible and permitted by law for the vehicle to be driven on public roads.

In this way the claim is considered justified, as the exception for deficiencies should only be applied when the removal of a separate part does not violate the integrity of the vehicle and its intended use.

In our case, as a result of the actions of the unknown person to take away the missing items, damage was caused to our client's vehicle. After the separation of this part, the vehicle could not fulfill its intended purpose at all, since it could not be driven in accordance with the traffic rules, and therefore the insurer should pay insurance compensation - in our case in amount of 10,000 leva.

What is the conclusion?

We wrote this article with the aim of motivating people to seek protection of their rights against insurers. Even if their general terms and conditions, as in this case, provide something to the detriment of consumers of insurance services, this does not mean that the insurer is right in the dispute. It is always good to consult a specialist if you suspect that your rights have been violated.